FDA Tests Talc Cosmetics for Asbestos and Finds None in 50 Samples (2021)

On October 25, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released the results of its 2021 round of testing talc-containing cosmetic products for asbestos. In the agency’s words, “Asbestos fibers were not detected in any of the 50 samples tested in 2021.” The FDA said it planned to test 50 more samples in 2022. The mineral itself is described on the site’s Asbestos page.

This page reports what the FDA’s own documents say: what was released and when, how the products were chosen and tested, why the round planned for 2020 ran in 2021, the background the FDA gives on talc, asbestos and its authority over cosmetics, what the agency said would come next, what the survey does not do, its status as of October 18, 2026, and how it fits earlier and later FDA talc actions. No cosmetic product, brand, company or laboratory is named here; the FDA’s own summary table lists every product tested, and it is not reproduced.

Table of Contents

  1. What the FDA Released on October 25, 2021
  2. How the Products Were Chosen
  3. How the Samples Were Tested
  4. Why the 2020 Round Ran in 2021
  5. Talc, Asbestos and the FDA’s Authority Over Cosmetics
  6. What the FDA Said Would Come Next
  7. What the Survey Does Not Do
  8. Dates and Legal Status as of October 18, 2026
  9. How It Fits Earlier and Later FDA Talc Actions
  10. Primary Documents
  11. Key Research Papers
  12. Connections
  13. Featured Videos

1. What the FDA Released on October 25, 2021

The announcement was a constituent update, one of the FDA’s short public notices. Titled “FDA Releases Data from the Agency’s 2021 Testing of Talc-Containing Cosmetic Products for Asbestos,” it states that the FDA “has released the results of the agency’s most recent sampling assignment testing talc-containing cosmetic products for the presence of asbestos.”

The central finding is one sentence: “Asbestos fibers were not detected in any of the 50 samples tested in 2021.” The update adds that “The testing was conducted using Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM),” two kinds of microscope analysis described in section 3.

The full results were posted on the FDA’s Talc page under “2021 Testing of Talc-Containing Cosmetics for Asbestos.” That section links the contract laboratory’s final report in five parts (Parts 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4) and an FDA summary table which, the page says, gives for each product “product distributor/manufacturer, brand, product name, batch/lot #, FDA Sample ID #, and the findings from the testing.” A sampling assignment is the FDA’s term for a planned project in which the agency collects and tests products of one kind.

Back to Table of Contents

2. How the Products Were Chosen

The constituent update states that the “Products were selected and purchased by the FDA, and then samples of the products were blinded and transferred” to the testing laboratory. Blinded means the samples were sent without the laboratory being told which product each one was.

The FDA lists the factors it used to pick the products. In its words, they were selected “based on various factors including, type of talc-containing cosmetic product, price range, popular products on social media and in advertisements, products marketed to children, and, if any, third party reports of potential asbestos contamination.” The same list appears on the FDA’s Talc page in its section on the 2021 testing.

The products were therefore chosen by these factors rather than drawn at random from the market. The FDA’s later updates for the 2022 and 2023 rounds repeat the same factors and add one more, “products marketed to women of color”; that factor does not appear in the 2021 list.

Back to Table of Contents

3. How the Samples Were Tested

The FDA did not run the tests in its own laboratories. The constituent update explains that in September 2019 a private laboratory was awarded a contract to test talc-containing cosmetics for asbestos fibers. The FDA states that the laboratory was chosen “because of its expertise and experience in asbestos testing,” and because it is accredited for analysis of asbestos in bulk materials through the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST-NVLAP).

Two microscopy methods were used on every round of FDA talc testing described in these documents:

Why two methods matter was set out a few months later. A white paper released by the FDA on January 13, 2022, written by a federal Interagency Working Group on Asbestos in Consumer Products (IWGACP), gave as its first scientific opinion “Utilizing both Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) methods to identify and report the presence of asbestos and other similar particles.” The FDA’s update on that white paper notes that “the FDA’s previous and current talc sampling assignments used PLM and TEM to detect asbestos.”

Back to Table of Contents

4. Why the 2020 Round Ran in 2021

The constituent update explains the timing: “The first sampling assignment was completed in 2019, however due to COVID-19, the sampling assignment planned for 2020 was carried out during 2021.”

The plan for that round had been announced earlier. The FDA’s March 9, 2020 constituent update, which released the results of the year-long 2019 assignment, said the agency was “planning to continue its talc sampling assignment throughout 2020, with 50 samples selected for blinded testing,” and that “Those final results will be released when available in early 2021.” The results came out in October 2021 instead.

The 2019 round had found asbestos in some samples, and the FDA had issued a consumer safety alert and worked with companies on recalls. Those results are reported on the site’s page on the 2024 proposal to require asbestos testing of talc cosmetics and are not repeated here.

Back to Table of Contents

5. Talc, Asbestos and the FDA’s Authority Over Cosmetics

The FDA’s Talc page (content current as of January 16, 2026) gives this background:

The same page explains the limits of the FDA’s authority as it describes them. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, “cosmetic products and ingredients, with the exception of color additives, do not have to undergo FDA review or approval before they go on the market.” They must be properly labeled and safe under labeled or customary conditions of use. The FDA monitors for safety problems once products are on the market, and states: “Before we can take such action against a cosmetic product, we need sound scientific data to show that it is harmful under its intended use.”

Back to Table of Contents

6. What the FDA Said Would Come Next

The October 2021 update made two forward statements:

Both were followed by later documents (section 9): the 2022 round was reported in December 2022, and work on standard testing methods continued with the January 2022 white paper.

Back to Table of Contents

7. What the Survey Does Not Do

Back to Table of Contents

8. Dates and Legal Status as of October 18, 2026

Status as of October 18, 2026: completed testing survey; no legal effect. The 2021 survey was a one-time release of test data and has no legal status to change. A check of the Federal Register for FDA documents on talc published from October 25, 2021 through October 18, 2026 returned only two: the December 2024 proposed rule and its November 2025 withdrawal. No replacement proposal had appeared by that date. The withdrawal notice’s summary states that the FDA acted “in response to comments received during the comment period for the proposed rule that warrant further consideration and assessment prior to issuing final regulations,” and the FDA’s Talc page states the same.

Back to Table of Contents

9. How It Fits Earlier and Later FDA Talc Actions

The 2021 round is one step in a longer sequence that the FDA’s Talc page and constituent updates describe:

The 2022 cosmetics law, MoCRA, is described on the site’s page on the FDA’s first year carrying out the 2022 cosmetics law. Another 2021 cosmetics action, the repeal of the approval for lead acetate in hair dye, is reported on its own page. A docket is the public file for an FDA action, where its documents and public comments are kept on regulations.gov.

Back to Table of Contents

10. Primary Documents

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Releases Data from the Agency’s 2021 Testing of Talc-Containing Cosmetic Products for Asbestos. Constituent Update, October 25, 2021 — fda.gov constituent update, October 25, 2021
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Talc. Cosmetics program page (sections on 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023 testing and the 2022 white paper), content current as of January 16, 2026 — fda.gov Talc page
  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Releases Data from the Agency’s Year-Long Sampling Assignment to Test Talc-Containing Cosmetic Products for the Presence of Asbestos. Constituent Update, March 9, 2020 — fda.gov constituent update, March 9, 2020
  4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Releases White Paper on Testing Methods for Asbestos in Cosmetic Products Containing Talc. Constituent Update, January 13, 2022 — fda.gov constituent update, January 13, 2022
  5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Releases Data from the Agency’s 2022 Testing of Talc-Containing Cosmetic Products for Asbestos. Constituent Update, December 7, 2022 — fda.gov constituent update, December 7, 2022
  6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Releases Data from the Agency’s 2023 Testing of Talc-Containing Cosmetic Products for Asbestos. Cosmetics Constituent Update, April 5, 2024 — fda.gov constituent update, April 5, 2024
  7. Food and Drug Administration, HHS (2024). Testing Methods for Detecting and Identifying Asbestos in Talc-Containing Cosmetic Products. Proposed rule. Federal Register 89 FR 105490, December 27, 2024. Docket No. FDA-2023-N-4225; RIN 0910-AI82 — FR Doc. 2024-30544
  8. Food and Drug Administration, HHS (2025). Testing Methods for Detecting and Identifying Asbestos in Talc-Containing Cosmetic Products; Withdrawal. Proposed rule; withdrawal. Federal Register 90 FR 54603, November 28, 2025. Docket No. FDA-2023-N-4225; RIN 0910-AI82 — FR Doc. 2025-21407
  9. Public docket FDA-2020-N-0025 (2020 public meeting on testing methods; IWGACP white paper) — regulations.gov FDA-2020-N-0025

Back to Table of Contents

Key Research Papers

  1. O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, Anderson GL, Weinberg CR, Trabert B, Kaunitz AM, D’Aloisio AA, Sandler DP, Wentzensen N (2020). Association of Powder Use in the Genital Area With Risk of Ovarian Cancer. JAMA 323(1):49-59 — PubMed PMID: 31910280
  2. Terry KL, Karageorgi S, Shvetsov YB, Merritt MA, Lurie G, Thompson PJ, et al.; Australian Cancer Study (Ovarian Cancer); Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group; Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (2013). Genital powder use and risk of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 8,525 cases and 9,859 controls. Cancer Prevention Research 6(8):811-21 — PubMed PMID: 23761272
  3. Penninkilampi R, Eslick GD (2018). Perineal Talc Use and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Epidemiology 29(1):41-49 — PubMed PMID: 28863045
  4. Mirabelli D, Terracini B (2024). Carcinogenicity of asbestos-free talc and talcum powder: A systematic review of the epidemiological evidence after the 2006 monograph of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Epidemiologia e Prevenzione 48(3):220-232 — PubMed PMID: 38995135
  5. Moline J, Bevilacqua K, Alexandri M, Gordon RE (2020). Mesothelioma Associated With the Use of Cosmetic Talc. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 62(1):11-17 — PubMed PMID: 31609780
  6. Finley BL, Benson SM, Marsh GM (2017). Cosmetic talc as a risk factor for pleural mesothelioma: a weight of evidence evaluation of the epidemiology. Inhalation Toxicology 29(4):179-185 — PubMed PMID: 28651470
  7. Sanchez MS, McGrath-Koerner M, McNamee BD (2023). Characterization of elongate mineral particles including talc, amphiboles, and biopyriboles observed in mineral derived powders: Comparisons of analysis of the same talcum powder samples by two laboratories. Environmental Research 230:114791 — PubMed PMID: 36965804

The first four papers are a pooled cohort analysis, a pooled case-control analysis and two systematic reviews on genital powder or talc use and cancer, the question the FDA describes as not conclusively settled. The next two take different views of the evidence on cosmetic talc and mesothelioma: a case series and a weight-of-evidence review of the epidemiology. The last compares how two laboratories classified mineral particles in the same talcum powder samples, the kind of method question the federal working group’s white paper addressed.

PubMed Topic Searches

  1. PubMed: asbestos in cosmetic talc
  2. PubMed: talc asbestos testing by electron microscopy
  3. PubMed: talc and ovarian cancer
  4. PubMed: cosmetic talc and mesothelioma

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

Back to Table of Contents